Reply to the letter to the editor: [Comment on “The relationship between atherogenic index of plasma and no-reflow in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention]

• Published in: The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging Vol. 37; no. 1; pp. 1 - 2
• Main Authors: Süleymanoğlu, Muhammed, Rencüzoğulları, İbrahim, Karabağ, Yavuz, Çağdaş, Metin, Yesin, Mahmut, Gümüşdağ, Ayça, Çap, Murat, Gök, Murat, Yıldız, İbrahim
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 2021; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Angioplasty; Cardiac Imaging; Cardiology; Editorial Commentary; Heart attacks; Humans; Imaging; Lipoproteins; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Myocardial infarction; No-Reflow Phenomenon; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Plasma; Population studies; Predictive Value of Tests; Radiology; Segments; ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction; Triglycerides; Turkey; Turkey; No-reflow; Percutaneous coronary intervention; ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; Atherogenic index of plasma
• ISSN: 1569-5794; 1573-0743; 1875-8312
• DOI: 10.1007/s10554-020-01905-6

We have read with a great pleasure the letter of Dr. Cure et al. to the editor about our recent study which showed an association between atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) and no-reflow in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Dr Cure raises concerns about the miscalculation of AIP value that suggested choosing ‘mmol/l’ in equation instead of ‘mg/dl’. As the AIP is the logarithmic transformation of triglyceride/high density lipoprotein; ‘mmol/l’ and an alternatively ‘mg/dl’ units can be used in the equation to calculate AIP values. Cure et al. also argue that our patients’ lipoprotein levels were lower than expected. However, in a population based study and in several studies which were held in Turkey, the mean values of lipoprotein levels in Turkish population were nearly similar with our study population findings. We thank the authors' letter for pointing out these issues which we hope to have addressed.